- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Posts
- 201
- Likes
- 51
Yeah, go figure, it's not music that's trying to make it big on the radio.
While I hate the loudness wars, at the same time, I don't think all albums should sound the same as far as dynamic range goes either. I've never looked at an album's numbers for dynamic range. That's just analyzing music too much for me (but if that's your thing, I have no problem with it). I trust my ears, and I can hear if a record has a nice dynamic range like what I usually like, or if a lot of compression was used. I really don't need an exact number, because I can't imagine it meaning much to me in most cases.
I think audiophiles sometimes get lost in analyzing the production of music and forget that really, in most cases, production makes up maybe 20% of what makes a good album (I'll raise that number for classical, hip-hop, electronic, and in some cases, jazz, but it's still going to be under 50%). This is just my opinion obviously, but it's why I rarely read music reviews from audiphiles. I've seen too many reviews where it's something along the lines of "These guitars are cool, and I like the drums here...now let me give you an essay on the production of this record."
Another thing to remember is that there is only one way a record should sound: the way the artists wants it do. If that artists wants his/her album to be super compressed, lo-fi, or anything else shunned by audiophiles, that's the way the album should sound. I'm not counting garbage like big record companies telling their artists how their stuff should sound (really, that's where the loudness wars come from). I may not always agree with these decisions, and I may have my own opinion on how I wish something was produced, but at the end of the day, I'm not the one in the studio, and I'm not the artist. An example of this for me is The Woods, from Sleater-Kinney, which was produced by Flaming Lips producer Dave Fridmann. In interviews, it's been stated that they tried to make the record sound as if the listeners' speakers were broken (so the album clips quite a lot; not horribly like Californication, but it's very noticeable). I'd like to hear the album without the clipping, but who knows, I may not like it as much. The band wanted that distorted sound, and that's their right, and I might end up not liking the record as much if it sounded more clean. Actually, I'd love to hear it distorted in more of a Neutral Milk Hotel - In the Aeroplane Over the Sea way, where they just had everything run through tube preamps cranked way up, so they were really slamming the transformers hard. Anyways, point is, I still love the record. I've seen many people on this site say they won't listen to it because of the quality. Man, I'm so against that. The music on that album is still incredible, whether you like the production or not. I really struggle to respect audiophiles like this, as I feel that they've started putting sound quality over music, and to me, that signifies no longer being a music lover, but a sound quality lover, and if you're not in this hobby for the love of music, I honestly think you could find better places to spend your money (sorry if that's a bit harsh, it's just how I feel).
Anyways, I went on a bit of a tangent there. TL;DR: I don't like the loudness wars anymore than the next audiophile, but it's important to remember that production only makes up a small portion of what makes a good album (or just good music in general). The only way a record should sound is how the recording artists wants it to sound, no matter how compressed, distorted, weird, etc. that may be. The studio is a place to be creative. My issue is when big record companies trying to get hits on the radio have their producers tweak records to make them sound different from what the artist intended (and this is the root of the loudness wars). If anyone wants an example of this, look at what happened with Nirvana - In Utero (my favorite Nirvana record), originally produced by Steve Albini (who did the recent remaster with the remaining members of the band present).
While I hate the loudness wars, at the same time, I don't think all albums should sound the same as far as dynamic range goes either. I've never looked at an album's numbers for dynamic range. That's just analyzing music too much for me (but if that's your thing, I have no problem with it). I trust my ears, and I can hear if a record has a nice dynamic range like what I usually like, or if a lot of compression was used. I really don't need an exact number, because I can't imagine it meaning much to me in most cases.
I think audiophiles sometimes get lost in analyzing the production of music and forget that really, in most cases, production makes up maybe 20% of what makes a good album (I'll raise that number for classical, hip-hop, electronic, and in some cases, jazz, but it's still going to be under 50%). This is just my opinion obviously, but it's why I rarely read music reviews from audiphiles. I've seen too many reviews where it's something along the lines of "These guitars are cool, and I like the drums here...now let me give you an essay on the production of this record."
Another thing to remember is that there is only one way a record should sound: the way the artists wants it do. If that artists wants his/her album to be super compressed, lo-fi, or anything else shunned by audiophiles, that's the way the album should sound. I'm not counting garbage like big record companies telling their artists how their stuff should sound (really, that's where the loudness wars come from). I may not always agree with these decisions, and I may have my own opinion on how I wish something was produced, but at the end of the day, I'm not the one in the studio, and I'm not the artist. An example of this for me is The Woods, from Sleater-Kinney, which was produced by Flaming Lips producer Dave Fridmann. In interviews, it's been stated that they tried to make the record sound as if the listeners' speakers were broken (so the album clips quite a lot; not horribly like Californication, but it's very noticeable). I'd like to hear the album without the clipping, but who knows, I may not like it as much. The band wanted that distorted sound, and that's their right, and I might end up not liking the record as much if it sounded more clean. Actually, I'd love to hear it distorted in more of a Neutral Milk Hotel - In the Aeroplane Over the Sea way, where they just had everything run through tube preamps cranked way up, so they were really slamming the transformers hard. Anyways, point is, I still love the record. I've seen many people on this site say they won't listen to it because of the quality. Man, I'm so against that. The music on that album is still incredible, whether you like the production or not. I really struggle to respect audiophiles like this, as I feel that they've started putting sound quality over music, and to me, that signifies no longer being a music lover, but a sound quality lover, and if you're not in this hobby for the love of music, I honestly think you could find better places to spend your money (sorry if that's a bit harsh, it's just how I feel).
Anyways, I went on a bit of a tangent there. TL;DR: I don't like the loudness wars anymore than the next audiophile, but it's important to remember that production only makes up a small portion of what makes a good album (or just good music in general). The only way a record should sound is how the recording artists wants it to sound, no matter how compressed, distorted, weird, etc. that may be. The studio is a place to be creative. My issue is when big record companies trying to get hits on the radio have their producers tweak records to make them sound different from what the artist intended (and this is the root of the loudness wars). If anyone wants an example of this, look at what happened with Nirvana - In Utero (my favorite Nirvana record), originally produced by Steve Albini (who did the recent remaster with the remaining members of the band present).
.
