|
Post by sickmouthy on May 22, 2009 6:35:19 GMT
Woah, someone make this guy mod already. Haha, I wasn't meaning to be pissy - I just thought it was an actual bona fide good idea. Last tracks are a favourite of mine, particularly when they sound like going home. (Which Land's End, obviously, explicitly does.)
|
|
|
Post by Self Destruction on May 22, 2009 10:21:00 GMT
Can everyone who's using the "you woldn't look at art through a little JPEG" argument please realise that music nowadays is designed to sound good through even the worst of speakers/headphones/whatever, and realise that spending £200 on a pair of headphones is just ludacris.
Besides, one can usually tell if something is a good piece of music or not by simply LISTENING to it. No need to go out and spent your savings on listening equipment for a slight boost in quality. It's just not practical.
And the people moaning about the production (myself, kinda included) I think they mean that there is alot of space left in the album, that instead of boosting the dynamics of certain instruments, Patrick has opted for the CTF approach - Compess it To FUCK (as my bands producer says). It works on some things, but on this album, things like Damaris and, to a lesser extent, Count of Casualty are ruined by what I fear might just be a few dull choices on the artists front.
Don't get me wrong - WITW and TMP sounded different, yet the same. They sounded full and complete, like every instrument had been given its own seperate space on the sound. While this occurs on some songs on this album (The Bachelor, Oblivion (to an extent) and Vulture), most of them create more space where there SHOULD be sound, giving it a bit of a flat and at times lifeless feel.
Oh, and I've been listening to it on a promo copy through a £100 speaker system I got for my birthday last year, make of that what you will. Other albums sound fine and at times great with it, it's just The Bachelor that sounds different.
|
|
|
Post by sickmouthy on May 22, 2009 10:29:33 GMT
Can everyone who's using the "you woldn't look at art through a little JPEG" argument please realise that music nowadays is designed to sound good through even the worst of speakers/headphones/whatever, and realise that spending £200 on a pair of headphones is just ludacris. Besides, one can usually tell if something is a good piece of music or not by simply LISTENING to it. No need to go out and spent your savings on listening equipment for a slight boost in quality. It's just not practical. And the people moaning about the production (myself, kinda included) I think they mean that there is alot of space left in the album, that instead of boosting the dynamics of certain instruments, Patrick has opted for the CTF approach - Compess it To FUCK (as my bands producer says). It works on some things, but on this album, things like Damaris and, to a lesser extent, Count of Casualty are ruined by what I fear might just be a few dull choices on the artists front. Don't get me wrong - WITW and TMP sounded different, yet the same. They sounded full and complete, like every instrument had been given its own seperate space on the sound. While this occurs on some songs on this album (The Bachelor, Oblivion (to an extent) and Vulture), most of them create more space where there SHOULD be sound, giving it a bit of a flat and at times lifeless feel. Oh, and I've been listening to it on a promo copy through a £100 speaker system I got for my birthday last year, make of that what you will. Other albums sound fine and at times great with it, it's just The Bachelor that sounds different. This is complete and utter drivel.
|
|
|
Post by sickmouthy on May 22, 2009 10:53:54 GMT
1. Phil Spector was designing music to sound good on shitty little transistor radios in the early 60s, so your "nowadays" claim is just wrong. (Trevor Horn was doing the same for walkmen in the 80s, Xenomania for iPods in the 00s, to name but 2.)
2. Just because you CAN watch a film on an iPod doesn't mean it was "designed" to be watched on an iPod.
3. wtf is "practical" or "impractical" about spending hard-earned money on a hi-fi or headphones? If you like films, you buy a big TV, so why, if you like music, would you not buy a big stereo, or, at the least, understand that other people might like to do the same?
4. Yes, one can tell if one likes a song by LISTENING to it. One also hears more if one uses a better tool to listen with. I use a tiny 1gig iPod shuffle quite a lot, with a pair of £25 headphones. I also use a £200 pair of headphones running of an even more expensive set of DACs and amplifiers. Depends how I feel. Both are wicked!
5. This bit just doesn't make any sense at all - "And the people moaning about the production (myself, kinda included) I think they mean that there is alot of space left in the album, that instead of boosting the dynamics of certain instruments, Patrick has opted for the CTF approach - Compess it To FUCK (as my bands producer says). It works on some things, but on this album, things like Damaris and, to a lesser extent, Count of Casualty are ruined by what I fear might just be a few dull choices on the artists front." I've written about dynamic range compression pretty extensively, I've had stuff published in a book about it, I've had people like Guy Garvey and Owen Pallett and Graham Sutton compliment me on what I've written about it, blah blah etc etc, and what you say there doesn't make any sense in relation to the version of The Bachelor that I've heard.
6. If anything, bits of TMP are a little over-compressed (the "ping" at the end of the title track, for instance), especially compared to WitW, which is a really natural, live-sounding record. But Patrick's said that TMP was going for a 50s radio vibe or something, and thus the decisions made on it make sense.
7. If albums only sound fine through your speakers then get better albums.
|
|
|
Post by dumbnoteclectic on May 22, 2009 12:50:58 GMT
Can everyone who's using the "you woldn't look at art through a little JPEG" argument please realise that music nowadays is designed to sound good through even the worst of speakers/headphones/whatever, and realise that spending £200 on a pair of headphones is just ludacris. Besides, one can usually tell if something is a good piece of music or not by simply LISTENING to it. No need to go out and spent your savings on listening equipment for a slight boost in quality. It's just not practical. And the people moaning about the production (myself, kinda included) I think they mean that there is alot of space left in the album, that instead of boosting the dynamics of certain instruments, Patrick has opted for the CTF approach - Compess it To FUCK (as my bands producer says). It works on some things, but on this album, things like Damaris and, to a lesser extent, Count of Casualty are ruined by what I fear might just be a few dull choices on the artists front. Don't get me wrong - WITW and TMP sounded different, yet the same. They sounded full and complete, like every instrument had been given its own seperate space on the sound. While this occurs on some songs on this album (The Bachelor, Oblivion (to an extent) and Vulture), most of them create more space where there SHOULD be sound, giving it a bit of a flat and at times lifeless feel. Oh, and I've been listening to it on a promo copy through a £100 speaker system I got for my birthday last year, make of that what you will. Other albums sound fine and at times great with it, it's just The Bachelor that sounds different. Shush??
|
|
|
Post by Self Destruction on May 22, 2009 12:52:14 GMT
You're implying that music is only good when listened to trough the most expensive speakers possible, and by listening to it by "inferior" means, then you're not listening to the album as intended. THAT, is completely obsurd. If music was designed to be listened to this way, it just wouldn't sell, which is why it's MEANT to sound good through smaller speakers, headphones, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jay on May 22, 2009 12:52:52 GMT
Can everyone who's using the "you woldn't look at art through a little JPEG" argument please realise that music nowadays is designed to sound good through even the worst of speakers/headphones/whatever, and realise that spending £200 on a pair of headphones is just ludacris. i don't have much else to say on this topic, except for w-w-w-what's your f-f-antasy?
|
|
|
Post by tarantella on May 22, 2009 13:05:00 GMT
Uh, sorry to interrupt all this sexy techno babble, but can I talk about 'Battle'? I sort of feel like I should wait until the album has its own section and the song its own thread, but screw that! I want to talk about it now.
It sounds like a lot of people are disappointed by this track. I am too, but I'm not sure it's for the same reasons. I think it's actually a really good tune, but when I first heard it I thought, 'Wow, this is really weird." It's still a very strange song for me, and I think I've figured out why: it's shockingly conservative. (Disclaimer: my own opinions and interpretation, there is no absolute truth, blah blah blah.)
Sure, he's calling for a battle for 'equal rights' to fight 'the homophobe,' etc., but it's pretty much the most vague and least personal statement he could make. Why not put some heart in it, Patrick? I think he was trying to make it a universal message, but more vague =/= universal. I think it's pretty detrimental, actually, because I really cannot relate to it at all; it sounds more like he's trying to sell me something. (An ideology which in this case I happen to agree with, but he's not making a good case for it.)
Really, the lyrics. "Did you know it's time to get some victory"? "Got so sick of being told my identity was a minority"? Patrick, I normally love your lyrics, but this is not good. That latter lyric also mildly pisses me off. Maybe you could also consider all the ways in which you are socially privileged?
This song needs to be more queer! Let me list the ways in which it is not queer: 1. Rock and roll 2. Electric guitar 3. Chorus appears to be shouted by big burly men he found in a pub. Seriously, wtf? This is actually the most disappointing to me -- I found the whole 'battle misogyny, battle the patriarchy' stuff on the megamix to be sweet and endearing, if simplistic. But he seems to have forgotten that. Where are the women's voices? 4. 1-3 = appeal to mainstream? 5. I don't even know how he managed this, but every other song on The Bachelor is more queer than this one. The way he folds together gospel and folk on Damaris, the strings on Hard Times... I suspect it's because he was consciously trying to deal with queer issues on this track, and it backfired spectacularly on him.
It sounds like he's trying to sell 'equal rights' to his audience by being conservative and nonthreatening. I mean, he's shouting 'battle!' but the sound of the song does not push any boundaries. I guess you can argue that being 'moderate' is useful for pulling in people in the middle, but Patrick is not someone who can accomplish this. I mean this as a total compliment -- one of the things I love best about Patrick is that he is so queer. I'm not talking just about sexual orientation; he queers music genres, fashion, he has really awesome queer sensibilities and taste in art and music, etc. He is an innovator. Can you imagine him wearing one of his regular getups and appealing to the 'middle of the fence' folks?
I hope not. I don't want him to gain mass pop-icon celebrity if it means that he's writing songs like this. That may sound harsh and selfish, but, well, it's honest. Second-wave feminism taught us that the personal is political, Patrick. All you have to do is talk about yourself.
|
|
|
Post by sickmouthy on May 22, 2009 13:19:12 GMT
You're implying that music is only good when listened to trough the most expensive speakers possible, and by listening to it by "inferior" means, then you're not listening to the album as intended. THAT, is completely obsurd. If music was designed to be listened to this way, it just wouldn't sell, which is why it's MEANT to sound good through smaller speakers, headphones, etc. That's what you inferred, not what I implied. Notice I mentioned that I use a £30 iPod and £25 headphones? My own "big" hi-fi would cost about £700. You can get headphones costing 10x what my "expensive" pair cost. I love music. I like to wallow in it, to luxuriate in it, to be taken over and transported by it, and I've spent about the last 12 years finding the way that does that best for me. I've listened to original Beatles vinyl on £15,000 speakers, and I prefer my own hi-fi that cost much, much less than even one of the pre-amps that powered those speakers. It's not about "the most expensive speakers available". At all. It's about using your ears properly. On a very, very basic level, equipment that can produce a wider frequency and dynamic range LITERALLY allows you to hear "more" music. But you've got it in your head that having a decent stereo is sinful and unreal or something, so no one's going to convince you otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by naaaat on May 22, 2009 13:21:37 GMT
Haven't had time to give it much of a listen so far, but I'm just up to 'Thickets'; eeeeeeee it's lovely! Also I absolutely love the violin riff on 'Hard Times'! Thought 'Count Of Casualty' sounded good from the Amazon clips so looking forward to that one! Will give it a bit more of a listen in between revision over the holiday!
|
|
|
Post by sickmouthy on May 22, 2009 13:29:16 GMT
Uh, sorry to interrupt all this sexy techno babble, but can I talk about 'Battle'? I sort of feel like I should wait until the album has its own section and the song its own thread, but screw that! I want to talk about it now. It sounds like a lot of people are disappointed by this track. I am too, but I'm not sure it's for the same reasons. I think it's actually a really good tune, but when I first heard it I thought, 'Wow, this is really weird." It's still a very strange song for me, and I think I've figured out why: it's shockingly conservative. (Disclaimer: my own opinions and interpretation, there is no absolute truth, blah blah blah.) Sure, he's calling for a battle for 'equal rights' to fight 'the homophobe,' etc., but it's pretty much the most vague and least personal statement he could make. Why not put some heart in it, Patrick? I think he was trying to make it a universal message, but more vague =/= universal. I think it's pretty detrimental, actually, because I really cannot relate to it at all; it sounds more like he's trying to sell me something. (An ideology which in this case I happen to agree with, but he's not making a good case for it.) Really, the lyrics. "Did you know it's time to get some victory"? "Got so sick of being told my identity was a minority"? Patrick, I normally love your lyrics, but this is not good. That latter lyric also mildly pisses me off. Maybe you could also consider all the ways in which you are socially privileged? This song needs to be more queer! Let me list the ways in which it is not queer: 1. Rock and roll 2. Electric guitar 3. Chorus appears to be shouted by big burly men he found in a pub. Seriously, wtf? This is actually the most disappointing to me -- I found the whole 'battle misogyny, battle the patriarchy' stuff on the megamix to be sweet and endearing, if simplistic. But he seems to have forgotten that. Where are the women's voices? 4. 1-3 = appeal to mainstream? 5. I don't even know how he managed this, but every other song on The Bachelor is more queer than this one. The way he folds together gospel and folk on Damaris, the strings on Hard Times... I suspect it's because he was consciously trying to deal with queer issues on this track, and it backfired spectacularly on him. It sounds like he's trying to sell 'equal rights' to his audience by being conservative and nonthreatening. I mean, he's shouting 'battle!' but the sound of the song does not push any boundaries. I guess you can argue that being 'moderate' is useful for pulling in people in the middle, but Patrick is not someone who can accomplish this. I mean this as a total compliment -- one of the things I love best about Patrick is that he is so queer. I'm not talking just about sexual orientation; he queers music genres, fashion, he has really awesome queer sensibilities and taste in art and music, etc. He is an innovator. Can you imagine him wearing one of his regular getups and appealing to the 'middle of the fence' folks? I hope not. I don't want him to gain mass pop-icon celebrity if it means that he's writing songs like this. That may sound harsh and selfish, but, well, it's honest. Second-wave feminism taught us that the personal is political, Patrick. All you have to do is talk about yourself. I suspect that there's not actually any real guitar on this song, and that it's actually all off a sampler / synth / something; would that, and the idea that maybe Patrick is trying to reclaim rock n roll, mediate your response at all? I'm not convinced by the song either, though, though I don't have any overt political issue with it.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on May 22, 2009 13:31:46 GMT
Sickmouthy - Do you realise how obnoxious you're coming across as being? People have stated they dislike things about the album and all you've done is completely dismiss them and talk about how much money you spend on hifi equipment and how many people have told you you're right. Well fucking done. To most people, if something is mixed well it should sounds good no matter what you listen to it on, obviously it will sound better on a better stereo, but not everyone HAS an awesome stereo. There's very few people on the board who could afford to spend even £25 on headphones (mainly due to the average age on the board) let alone £200 so telling them it's their fault they don't like the album as they don't have a good enough means of listening to it is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Self Destruction on May 22, 2009 13:36:28 GMT
Sickmouthy - Do you realise how obnoxious you're coming across as being? People have stated they dislike things about the album and all you've done is completely dismiss them and talk about how much money you spend on hifi equipment and how many people have told you you're right. Well fucking done. To most people, if something is mixed well it should sounds good no matter what you listen to it on, obviously it will sound better on a better stereo, but not everyone HAS an awesome stereo. There's very few people on the board who could afford to spend even £25 on headphones (mainly due to the average age on the board) let alone £200 so telling them it's their fault they don't like the album as they don't have a good enough means of listening to it is ridiculous. This is kinda what I was trying to say, before I shot myself in the foot!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sickmouthy on May 22, 2009 13:38:45 GMT
Sickmouthy - Do you realise how obnoxious you're coming across as being? People have stated they dislike things about the album and all you've done is completely dismiss them and talk about how much money you spend on hifi equipment and how many people have told you you're right. Well fucking done. To most people, if something is mixed well it should sounds good no matter what you listen to it on, obviously it will sound better on a better stereo, but not everyone HAS an awesome stereo. There's very few people on the board who could afford to spend even £25 on headphones (mainly due to the average age on the board) let alone £200 so telling them it's their fault they don't like the album as they don't have a good enough means of listening to it is ridiculous. That's a very fair point, yes, and I am pretty obnoxious, but people coming on here and talking nonsense about how the record sounds is pretty annoying, and also pretty obnoxious towards the guy who made the record and presumably, judging from interviews etc, cares a great deal about how his records sound. I've listened to this album on several different devices varying from dirt-cheap to pretty expensive and to my ears it sounds good at the least on all of them. An awful lot of people I know who know what they're talking about went "wow, this record sounds fantastic" as soon as they heard it. I also imagine that pretty much anyone could spend £25 on a pair of headphones if they didn't spend £25 on something else they count as a hobby or interest or whatever - booze, cigarettes, mobile phones, chocolate, petrol, gigs, clothes, whatever. I you love music I don't see it as outrageous to spend money on it.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on May 22, 2009 13:52:02 GMT
OK, but a lot of people seem to de disagreeing with you about it sounding good. I can't imagine Patrick set out to make an album that sounds good just to those in the know as it would seem. Regardless of how good those who understand production think it sounds, if it sounds bad to people who don't know as much there's still a problem with it. I agree it's not outrageous to spend money on something you love, but realistically, I also don't think that a 14 year old should have to save up their lunch money to enjoy music.
|
|
|
Post by atarilover1 on May 22, 2009 13:52:17 GMT
I've written about dynamic range compression pretty extensively, I've had stuff published in a book about it Hi sickmouthy i'm currently studying mixing and mastering at college, i'd be really interested to see what you've written. Would you be able to send me a link?
|
|
kitz
Libertine
Posts: 86
|
Post by kitz on May 22, 2009 13:58:31 GMT
You're arguing on an album that hasn't even released yet. How do you know the official release will sound like? That myspace stream isn't reliable, really.
|
|
|
Post by tarantella on May 22, 2009 14:00:20 GMT
I suspect that there's not actually any real guitar on this song, and that it's actually all off a sampler / synth / something; would that, and the idea that maybe Patrick is trying to reclaim rock n roll, mediate your response at all? I'm not convinced by the song either, though, though I don't have any overt political issue with it. Hmm, actually, yeah, that would be pretty interesting if there wasn't any guitar. Thanks for suggesting that idea, I'm pretty interested to find out now. I don't understand how the song tries to reclaim rock 'n' roll, though -- would you explain that, please? Reclamation is generally used to describe the action of, uh, reclaiming words that have been used in a derogatory fashion by changing their associated negative value to positive, e.g. 'female reproductive organs,' 'faggot,' etc. If he is trying to change anything about rock 'n' roll, I don't really see how he's doing it, or how he means to accomplish this goal with one song. I think I actually was a bit hasty with my last post -- the lyrics sound really weak, but it's maybe not fair to judge them without having seen the lyric booklet. If I find that what I'm hearing is accurate, though, I'll likely stand by my opinion. edit: Oh, for fuck's sake. C.U.N.T. should not be an offensive word to anybody. To whom do I complain about sexist censorship?
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on May 22, 2009 14:01:05 GMT
Kitz- No we're not, many people have promo copies and high quality leaks.
|
|
|
Post by sickmouthy on May 22, 2009 15:29:10 GMT
OK, but a lot of people seem to de disagreeing with you about it sounding good. I can't imagine Patrick set out to make an album that sounds good just to those in the know as it would seem. Regardless of how good those who understand production think it sounds, if it sounds bad to people who don't know as much there's still a problem with it. I agree it's not outrageous to spend money on something you love, but realistically, I also don't think that a 14 year old should have to save up their lunch money to enjoy music. I saved up my lunch money to buy records when I was that age!
|
|